The beauty of the 135L is amazing IQ, very nice reach for a lot of situations, and an already-awesome f/2 max aperture, all in a very portable & affordable package.

See, the thing is, the major advantage to the 135L and the 200mm f/2.8 right now is that they are dirt cheap compared to their quality. You can get 70-200L level results from each for <1/2 the price. Once you update both, especially if there is IS, the price moves a lot closer to the 70-200L. Especially for the 200mm f/2.8, when its street price is <$800, I can't see anyone buying the updated IS version for $1500 or so.

I can see the 135L getting that update, because the f/2 is an advantage...the 200mm I hope doesn't get updated, because that means there is always that cheaper option around

Well obviously I disagree. I don't have much interest in a zoom at 200mm or less. So a light, small 2.8 prime with IS would interest me much more. Even at double the current price I'd be interested. Different strokes.

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Does everyone really, truly, honestly believe that the current street price of currently released lenses is the same as the original manufacturers suggested retail price when those lenses were first released? Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing? Does no one understand that R&D costs a hell of a lot of money, and those costs need to be recouped by sales at the introductory price when a new product is introduced to the market, before it's price can reasonably be reduced? Does no one understand that over a period of decades, simple inflation will naturally increase the introductory MSRP of a new product above and beyond the MSRP of the product it is replacing when it was first released, thanks to the devaluing of our lovely fiat currencies?

Why does everyone complain about the higher introductory prices of new lenses or cameras? OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. That's how things work! If you want manufacturers like Canon to continue improving, to continue making technological advancements in optics, sensor technology, camera ergonomics, frame rates, and other features...WE pay for it. Research and development costs for something like a new lens design that is actually better than the GOOD lens design it is replacing runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Private sector corporations like Canon aren't funded by taxes...they are funded by the consumers who purchase and use their products. So OF COURSE the price of a BRAND SPANKIN NEW lens like the 135L is going to be more than the old 135L. Thanks to inflation, OF COURSE the introductory MSRP of that brand spankin new lens is going to be higher than the introductory MSRP of its predecessor...your dollars are WORTH LESS today than they were back then.

Please, stop bitching about the prices of newly released products if you don't understand some of the basic economic fundamentals that underpin those prices. It has gotten SO INCREDIBLY OLD now.

Wow. That's pretty harsh, given that you are making some assumptions yourself that from an economics standpoint might need further evaluation. Most things have become cheaper over the last several years. And if you leave out gas price fluctuations (a whole other can of worms) you may see that most of the Western world is actually faced with DEflation - despite the fact that our governments have increased the money supply to unprecedented levels.But with everything that is rather complex some items for sometimes unclear reasons have become more expensive or stayed pretty much the same. Optical stuff seems to be one of these areas. Not sure what the camera manufacturers are thinking. Maybe they can charge more for lenses now because cameras have come down to a more reasonable level after the "digital revolution" is everyday stuff now. Other lenses may come down again once the supply-demand cycles normalize things again. I don't really see spending over $2000 on a 24-70 even if I had money sitting around. The current 135L is a great deal in my opinion and (don't tell Canon) I might have spent a few bucks more even if necessary. But not a whole lot more. And I rather have it without IS anyway. Metal barrel and everything? Yeah, I'd pay a little extra for that. The optics are fine as they are. That's actually true for all their lenses. I wish they were of even better built quality.

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Does everyone really, truly, honestly believe that the current street price of currently released lenses is the same as the original manufacturers suggested retail price when those lenses were first released? Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing? Does no one understand that R&D costs a hell of a lot of money, and those costs need to be recouped by sales at the introductory price when a new product is introduced to the market, before it's price can reasonably be reduced? Does no one understand that over a period of decades, simple inflation will naturally increase the introductory MSRP of a new product above and beyond the MSRP of the product it is replacing when it was first released, thanks to the devaluing of our lovely fiat currencies?

Why does everyone complain about the higher introductory prices of new lenses or cameras? OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. That's how things work! If you want manufacturers like Canon to continue improving, to continue making technological advancements in optics, sensor technology, camera ergonomics, frame rates, and other features...WE pay for it. Research and development costs for something like a new lens design that is actually better than the GOOD lens design it is replacing runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Private sector corporations like Canon aren't funded by taxes...they are funded by the consumers who purchase and use their products. So OF COURSE the price of a BRAND SPANKIN NEW lens like the 135L is going to be more than the old 135L. Thanks to inflation, OF COURSE the introductory MSRP of that brand spankin new lens is going to be higher than the introductory MSRP of its predecessor...your dollars are WORTH LESS today than they were back then.

Please, stop bitching about the prices of newly released products if you don't understand some of the basic economic fundamentals that underpin those prices. It has gotten SO INCREDIBLY OLD now.

Hundreds of millions of dollars? I believe you are off by a pretty wide margin there. Also, what do taxes have to do with this?

Well, Canon has spent into the hundred million dollar range with R&D on their optics, lens design, integrated AF chips, etc. in general over the last decade. I guess I implied it was just for one lens, which it is not. They do spend proportionately large amounts of money researching and developing optical designs that no one else does, such as diffractive optics (something previously thought impossible) and viable fluorite lenses (which requires growing giant, flawless crystals), etc.

Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing?

I can't speak for everyone, but will speak for myself:

1. Part of progress is reduction of R&D and manufacturing costs, e.g. by using automation & mechanization. Computers have changed things drastically over the last three decades.

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

3. I'd expect some of the profits from previous lenses to go into R&D of new lenses. E.g. Canon sold the 24mm f/2.8 for almost 25 years before releasing the new IS USM version, and made some money from it.

Something tells me the price is gonna be double for new EF 135 f/2L IS

Does everyone really, truly, honestly believe that the current street price of currently released lenses is the same as the original manufacturers suggested retail price when those lenses were first released? Does everyone truly, honestly believe that the introductory MSRP of a brand new lens should or even could be exactly the same as the current street price of the item it may be replacing? Does no one understand that R&D costs a hell of a lot of money, and those costs need to be recouped by sales at the introductory price when a new product is introduced to the market, before it's price can reasonably be reduced? Does no one understand that over a period of decades, simple inflation will naturally increase the introductory MSRP of a new product above and beyond the MSRP of the product it is replacing when it was first released, thanks to the devaluing of our lovely fiat currencies?

Why does everyone complain about the higher introductory prices of new lenses or cameras? OF COURSE THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. That's how things work! If you want manufacturers like Canon to continue improving, to continue making technological advancements in optics, sensor technology, camera ergonomics, frame rates, and other features...WE pay for it. Research and development costs for something like a new lens design that is actually better than the GOOD lens design it is replacing runs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Private sector corporations like Canon aren't funded by taxes...they are funded by the consumers who purchase and use their products. So OF COURSE the price of a BRAND SPANKIN NEW lens like the 135L is going to be more than the old 135L. Thanks to inflation, OF COURSE the introductory MSRP of that brand spankin new lens is going to be higher than the introductory MSRP of its predecessor...your dollars are WORTH LESS today than they were back then.

Please, stop bitching about the prices of newly released products if you don't understand some of the basic economic fundamentals that underpin those prices. It has gotten SO INCREDIBLY OLD now.

Wow. That's pretty harsh, given that you are making some assumptions yourself that from an economics standpoint might need further evaluation. Most things have become cheaper over the last several years. And if you leave out gas price fluctuations (a whole other can of worms) you may see that most of the Western world is actually faced with DEflation - despite the fact that our governments have increased the money supply to unprecedented levels.But with everything that is rather complex some items for sometimes unclear reasons have become more expensive or stayed pretty much the same. Optical stuff seems to be one of these areas. Not sure what the camera manufacturers are thinking. Maybe they can charge more for lenses now because cameras have come down to a more reasonable level after the "digital revolution" is everyday stuff now. Other lenses may come down again once the supply-demand cycles normalize things again. I don't really see spending over $2000 on a 24-70 even if I had money sitting around. The current 135L is a great deal in my opinion and (don't tell Canon) I might have spent a few bucks more even if necessary. But not a whole lot more. And I rather have it without IS anyway. Metal barrel and everything? Yeah, I'd pay a little extra for that. The optics are fine as they are. That's actually true for all their lenses. I wish they were of even better built quality.

You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.

Canon has produced a variety of innovations either not found anywhere else, or found only in one or two competitors. Nanocoatings on lenses (SWC), for example, which uses a fairly precise coating of nano-scale wedges on the lens, rather than a multicoating, required a considerable amount of R&D to develop. The only other manufacturer that has something similar is Nikon, with their Nano Crystal Coat, which uses nano-scale spherical grains rather than wedges. Canon developed a way to grow near-flawless fluorite crystals for use in lenses as an alternative to UD glass (as its ability to reduce dispersion is superior to UD). They have been continuously developing their fluorite crystal growth, and are capable of producing very large, truly flawless crystals in a large enough quantity to start mass-manufacturing supertelephoto lenses with multiple fluorite lenses. The use of multiple fluorite lens elements is one of the few key factors directly responsible for the extremely high cost of Canon's new line of supertelephoto lenses, along with more expensive and far lighter materials for the lens barrel. Canon has also put in a tremendous amount of R&D into not only proving diffractive optics could actually be used to counteract CA in lenses, but developed it and produced several lenses using the technology. They have continued to develop diffractive optics, and have greatly refined their processes and designs such that they now have somewhere around 6-8 new DO lens design patents using far superior DO designs with smaller gratings, multi-layered gratings, etc.

All of that R&D is funded by the sale of their own products, and as such it is no surprise that newly introduced lenses carry a hefty price tag...whether they actually directly benefit from the technological advancements or not. Personally, I chose and continue to choose Canon because they never seem to stop pushing the envelope with their optical research. They have brought more newfangled lens designs and lens technology to market in the last decade than any other manufacturer, including Zeiss. That is something I appreciate, and I'm not about to diss Canon for selling their products at high prices to fund it all, so long as the market can bear them. (Which, so far, it certainly seems to...I want to buy myself a either one or both of the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II and EF 600mm f/4 L II, and I can't even find them in stock anywhere. Whenever I get a notification from the likes of B&H or Adorama, by the time I find a computer log in, and try to buy, they are already sold out. I've never been one for backordering things...but I may just have to.) If the market can bear a price, and a product is in high demand, then it seems as though the price is fair.

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

Are you comparing the current street price of the older 24/2.8 to the MSRP of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM? That is exactly what I would call an unfair price comparison. Even comparing with it's current list price, $540, is a bit unfairl. That older lens has been on the market forever. What was the original price of the 24 f/2.8, or the price from just a decade ago? $650? Compared to a list price of $850 for the new 24mm f/2.8 lens, the price difference is about 30%, rather than 60%. When you account for inflation over the last decade, a $650 lens from 2000 would be an $874 lens today. The newly released lens on an inflation-normal basis is actually a little cheaper. Even if we assume the price a decade ago was $540, with inflation that is $726, a 17% difference in price (although I believe I am being far too fair with that comparison.)

Oh, and inflation does apply. The kinds of rarer and commodity materials used in lenses have most definitely not experienced deflation like some things. Metals and chemicals in particular have experienced quite a bit of cost inflation in the last decade.

Sure, however a new lens just released only has a price right now. There is no historical price to apply inflation to. A decade-old lens, on the other hand, had a higher price 10 or 15 years ago than it does today...when you adjust for inflation.

You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.

Hm. I don't know. I don't fully buy that argument as far as the "made for digital" redesign goes. Sure, they all have done some amazing things over the last few decades though a lot of this is really not that new. Coatings maybe. But there has always been a need for very good lenses with small frame photography - which is why Leica lenses are so good. There is probably still some room for improvement but there are physical limits when it comes to resolution that no optical formula can make go away.I'm still operating under the assumption that if something was good enough for 35mm film it's good enough for my 5dII. Maybe there is still some room when it comes to 40MP or so cameras. We'll see.

The weakest link in my opinion is still printing technology. Even today's resolution doesn't make it onto a print unless you go pretty big. And on screens it's irrelevant as well. Those of us obsessing about detail sharpness would probably still be better served using medium or large format film and traditional prints.

And when it comes to sharpness a tripod is likely to be a better investment still at this point than thousands of dollars for lenses with super-duper-made-for-digital resolution. In other words: I really don't see how it would be a top priority to replace something like the 135L or original 24-70 etc

You may not quite understand the kind of optics that are going into Canons newer generation of lenses. Canon's older generation of lenses that use optical designs a decade old or older are not always capable of resolving the kind of detail modern high-density sensors can. Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor is capable of resolving more detail than most of their middle-grade L-series lenses can offer. Only the top few superteles, such as the 300mm f/2.8 L II and it's immediate family, could really resolve anywhere close enough to fully take advantage of a 4.3 micron sensor. As sensors push into 40mp or even 50mp FF territory, and 25mp to 30mp APS-C territory, we are going to need lenses that perform at a much higher optical level.

Hm. I don't know. I don't fully buy that argument as far as the "made for digital" redesign goes. Sure, they all have done some amazing things over the last few decades though a lot of this is really not that new. Coatings maybe. But there has always been a need for very good lenses with small frame photography - which is why Leica lenses are so good. There is probably still some room for improvement but there are physical limits when it comes to resolution that no optical formula can make go away.I'm still operating under the assumption that if something was good enough for 35mm film it's good enough for my 5dII. Maybe there is still some room when it comes to 40MP or so cameras. We'll see.

The weakest link in my opinion is still printing technology. Even today's resolution doesn't make it onto a print unless you go pretty big. And on screens it's irrelevant as well. Those of us obsessing about detail sharpness would probably still be better served using medium or large format film and traditional prints.

And when it comes to sharpness a tripod is likely to be a better investment still at this point than thousands of dollars for lenses with super-duper-made-for-digital resolution. In other words: I really don't see how it would be a top priority to replace something like the 135L or original 24-70 etc

I won't generally disagree about resolution...past lenses have been very good. Once a lens becomes diffraction limited at a given aperture, you have reached perfection. If you compare MTF's for Canon's new generation of telephotos (300, 400, 500, 600 Mark II's), against their predecessors, you'll see a fairly marked improvement in the new generation. That indicates that the previous generation was not actually diffraction limited at wider apertures, and that there was (and perhaps still is) room for improvement. Given that the last generation were already SO GOOD, at least in my opinion, it is not surprising that producing a lens that is markedly better involves a lot of costly research and development and new, previously unused (or infrequently used) technology and optical materials. I am not sure I'd say Canon is building lenses for the current generation of cameras. I would say that Canon is building lenses for the next decade or two of cameras, assuming sensor pixel densities continue to increase at a similar rate as they have been...in which case we would need far superior optics than we did two years ago (as well as rock-solid stable tripods).

I agree about print. It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.

It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.

It's rather ironic that people do obsess over resolution so much when for the majority of them, their final publishing platform is the web, at low densities and tiny sizes relative to even an 8x10 print.

2. I don't expect it to cost the same, but don't expect it to be, say as in the case of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM, ~60% more expensive either.

Are you comparing the current street price of the older 24/2.8 to the MSRP of the new 24mm f/2.8 IS USM? That is exactly what I would call an unfair price comparison. Even comparing with it's current list price, $540, is a bit unfairl. That older lens has been on the market forever.

Which means Canon had "forever" of sales to profit from and save toward financing R&D of new model.

Sure, however a new lens just released only has a price right now. There is no historical price to apply inflation to. A decade-old lens, on the other hand, had a higher price 10 or 15 years ago than it does today...when you adjust for inflation.

[/quote]

No, inflation means the price of the 24mm f/2.8 today should have been higher than it's price 10 or 15 years ago. If it's lower, than it's price had deflated, e.g. because "part of progress is reduction of manufacturing [and distribution, etc] costs".